The inherent powers of the court cannot override statutory provisions, and appeals on preliminary issues that do not dispose of rights are not permissible in the Malaysian legal system.

Headnote:(A) Penal Code - Section 409 - Criminal Procedure Code - Jurisdiction and Powers - Charges of criminal breach of trust and cheating against the appellant were upheld by the courts below - The appellant's application to strike out the charges was dismissed by the High Court which held that inherent jurisdiction could not override express provisions of law, specifically the prerogative powers of the Attorney General - The appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to intervene in preliminary issues that do not dispose of the rights of the parties (Paras 6.1, 11-12, 39).

(B) Inherent Jurisdiction - Courts possess inherent powers to quash oppressive charges, but those are only exercised in strict circumstances and cannot override statutory procedures - It is emphasized that the jurisdiction to discharge is limited to grounds specified in the Criminal Procedure Code (Paras 25-30).

Facts of the case:
The appellant faced severe charges under the Penal Code for failing to inform the board of a company regarding land approvals affecting company assets, leading to significant unapproved transactions (Paras 3-4).

Findings of Court:
The High Court's dismissal of the motion was upheld, emphasizing that preliminary issues do not warrant appellate jurisdiction and that rights of the parties remain unaltered (Paras 6.1, 24-40).

Issues: Whether the High Court exercised original or appellate jurisdiction in its decisions, and the proper scope of its inherent powers regarding criminal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The courts below were correct in ruling that the inherent powers were not grounds for quashing charges that followed due legal processes as determined by statutory law (Paras 25-30, 39).

Result: Appeal dismissed as it was declared incompetent.

Table of Content
1. appeal subject matter and procedural background. (Para 1)
2. final decision regarding the appeal. (Para 2)
3. charges against the appellant and their specifics. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
4. court's observations on jurisdiction and inherent power. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 21 , 22)
5. counsel’s arguments regarding jurisdiction. (Para 12 , 13 , 15)
6. exercise of inherent jurisdiction to strike out charges. (Para 14 , 25 , 28)
7. high court’s jurisdiction not original. (Para 23)
8. inherent power of court to prevent abuse. (Para 24 , 26)
9. application of inherent jurisdiction in context of charges. (Para 27 , 30)
10. defects in charges raised as preliminary issues. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
11. nature of preliminary issues and implications for appeals. (Para 34 , 35 , 36)
12. definition of 'decision' under the cja and implications. (Para 37)

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 18 July 2013 in dismissing the appellant's appeal against the decision of the High Court. The High Court had on 15 March 2013 dismissed the appellant's application vide Notice of Motion to set aside or strike out the charges against him and for him to be acquitted and discharged.

[2] On 24 March 2014 we unanimously struck out the appellant's appeal. We now give our reasons.

Facts

[3] The appellant was charged in the Sessions Court Kuala Lumpur with two principal amended charges under s 409 of the Penal Code and two alternative amended charges under s 418 of the same Code. The charges read as follows:

First Amended Charge

Bahawa kamu di antara 17 November 2008 dan 4 Disember 2009, di Pejabat Sime Darby Bhd, Tingkat 21, Wisma Sime Darby, Jalan Raja Laut, 50350 Kuala Lumpur, di Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, sebagai seorang agen iaitu Presiden dan Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif Kumpulan Sime Darby Bhd, dan di dalam kapasiti tersebut, telah diamanahkan dengan penguasaan ke atas dana syarikat tersebut, iaitu untuk memperolehi Tanah Hak Adat Bumiputra (HAB) di bawah 'Sarawak Upstream Expansion Plan' (Sarawak Expansion Plan) untuk tanah di Sarawak dan telah memperoleh kelulusan bagi pihak Sime Darby Bhd daripada Kerajaan Negeri Sarawak bagi tanah HAB yang dimaksudkan terletak di 'Confluence of Btg Rejang/Btg Baleh, Kapit and the remaining eastern half of the Merurun/Meluan/Entabai, Julau', telah melakukan pecah amanah jenayah dengan curangnya menyebabkan Sime Darby Plantation Sdn Bhd, sebuah anak syarikat Sime Darby Bhd, untuk membuat bayaran bernilai RM16,816,217.00 untuk memperoleh Nature Ambiance Sdn Bhd melalui cek Maybank bernombor 457192 kerana perlu untuk memperolehi balik hak Sime Darby Bhd ke atas tanah HAB yang terletak di 'Confluence of Btg Rejang/Btg Baleh, Kapit and the remaining eastern half of the Merurun/Meluan/Entabai, Julau' yang telah sebaliknya dianugerahkan kepada Nature Ambience Sdn Bd disebabkan kegagalan kamu sebagai Presiden dan Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif Kumpulan Sime Darby Bhd, untuk mengambil atau mengarahkan tindakan undang-undang untuk membetulkan penganugerahan hak ke atas tanah HAB tersebut kepada Sime Darby Bhd dan oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 409 Kanun Keseksaan.

Second Amended Charge

Bahawa kamu di antara 17 November 2008 dan 28 November 2008, di Pejabat Sime Darby Bhd, Tingkat 21, Wisma Sime Darby, Jalan Raja Laut, 50350 Kuala Lumpur, di Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, sebagai seorang agen iaitu Presiden dan Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif Kumpulan Sime Darby Bhd, dan di dalam kapasiti tersebut, telah diamanahkan dengan penguasaan ke atas dana syarikat tersebut, iaitu untuk memperolehi Tanah Hak Adat Bumiputra (HAB) di bawah 'Sarawak Upstream Expansion Plan' (Sarawak Expansion Plan) untuk tanah di Sarawak dan telah memperoleh kelulusan bagi pihak Sime Darby Bhd daripada Kerajaan Negeri Sarawak bagi tanah HAB yang dimaksudkan terletak di 'KJD/Lower Julau, Sg Julau/Sg Pitoh/Sg Jiet dan part of Merurun/Meluan/Entabai, Sarikei', telah melakukan pecah amanah jenay

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 MarsdenLR 2132

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYAAHMAD ZUBAIR HJ MURSHID – AppellantVersusPP – Respondent[Criminal Appeal No: 05-241-10-2013(W)]

The inherent powers of the court cannot override statutory provisions, and appeals on preliminary issues that do not dispose of rights are not permissible in the Malaysian legal system.

Cases Referred (2)

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
AHMAD ZUBAIR HJ MURSHID – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: 05-241-10-2013(W)]